It's hilarious how many people don't realize how easy it is to link an IP address to a post once you commit a crime. Even without the courts, internet detectives have long been able to link handles to real identities with a little digging; anonymity is just a polite fiction when most people are unable to keep their real lives entirely offline.

Millennium:Recently, a small number of sites -big sites, yes, but still only a couple- have decided that anonymous discussion is no longer the best side of the tradeoff for them. Given how badly these sites had become overrun with the very worst of anonymity's disadvantages, they can't really be blamed for this: they fared very badly indeed in the tradeoff. Other sites remain anonymous, and seem to have no intention of changing. This is no great threat to Internet freedom

foxyshadis:It's hilarious how many people don't realize how easy it is to link an IP address to a post once you commit a crime. Even without the courts, internet detectives have long been able to link handles to real identities with a little digging; anonymity is just a polite fiction when most people are unable to keep their real lives entirely offline.

So, why the need to shotgun-march us to subscribe to creepy sh*t sites like Facebook?

TV's Vinnie:dv-ous: TV's Vinnie: what_now: This is literally the equivalent of going to someone's house, making an ass out of yourself, and then complaining when they kick you out.

Assuming your house is made of glass and everyone can see inside. In which case, you have no right to whine that there are people out there who don't agree with you about everything.

That doesn't even begin to make any sense.

Yeah. Sorry. I was talking to the adults.

So, what you're saying is that privately owned sites should be forced to let anyone comment any way they want to on their forums? Here's how it works: If I operate a website that allows the public to comment, I get to decide if any given comment is acceptable or not. If you don't like it, you're free to go start your own site where you can say and do anything you want to. When you send a letter to the editor of a print newspaper, they decide whether it's worthy of printing. This is the online equivalent.

Greek:TV's Vinnie: dv-ous: TV's Vinnie: what_now: This is literally the equivalent of going to someone's house, making an ass out of yourself, and then complaining when they kick you out.

Assuming your house is made of glass and everyone can see inside. In which case, you have no right to whine that there are people out there who don't agree with you about everything.

That doesn't even begin to make any sense.

Yeah. Sorry. I was talking to the adults.

So, what you're saying is that privately owned sites should be forced to let anyone comment any way they want to on their forums? Here's how it works: If I operate a website that allows the public to comment, I get to decide if any given comment is acceptable or not. If you don't like it, you're free to go start your own site where you can say and do anything you want to. When you send a letter to the editor of a print newspaper, they decide whether it's worthy of printing. This is the online equivalent.

If the site is on the very public Internet, and they have a comment section, then people should be allowed to voice their opinions.

What they're doing isn't needed. Moderators can delete comments of a threatening or inappropriate nature. I've deleted tons of worthless comments myself, with a small fraction having racist content.

Google's trying to save Google+ by linking YouTube comments to it and prioritizing the ones with G+ accounts. As for Huffpo and the rest? They hate differing opinions. Just as some farkers love to place people on the ignore function when they can't take it.

There's always going to be idiots that sputter nothing but hate and sick, twisted garbage, but we shouldn't support say, "Popular Science" shutting down all comments because of a few fools. This path some are taking looks dim.

Rather than resorting to outright censorship, I've often wondered why all sites don't just implement a simple moderation system like Slashdot's (I'd make it even simpler than that, actually - No "mod points" or any crap like that, just let everyone up or downvote whatever they want). Each user can independently choose the threshold of comments they want to view. That approach has another perk, in that if you only have five minutes to catch up on the news, you don't need to wade through 400 comments to find the good ones, you can set your threshold to "top 1%" or whatever the site wants to call it, and see just the gems. And if you have four hours to kill on an airport layover, hey, time to read at -1.

But hey, no worries Arianna. I don't participate in forums that censor posts, so no worries that I'll taint your pretty little pink feminist paradise. You and your echo chamber can pat each other on the back all day long. Mmm, pretty little pink backrubs... That sounds hot.

I'm sure she probably does, but that's probably not the reason for it. It's just better at preventing anonymity than forcing a user to create an account on their own site. Generally all you need to create a local site account is a throw away email address. Creating a Facebook profile takes nominally more work, and since most people already have one, they're unlikely to take the time to create another fake one just for commenting on the site.

pla:Rather than resorting to outright censorship, I've often wondered why all sites don't just implement a simple moderation system like Slashdot's (I'd make it even simpler than that, actually - No "mod points" or any crap like that, just let everyone up or downvote whatever they want). Each user can independently choose the threshold of comments they want to view. That approach has another perk, in that if you only have five minutes to catch up on the news, you don't need to wade through 400 comments to find the good ones, you can set your threshold to "top 1%" or whatever the site wants to call it, and see just the gems. And if you have four hours to kill on an airport layover, hey, time to read at -1.

But hey, no worries Arianna. I don't participate in forums that censor posts, so no worries that I'll taint your pretty little pink feminist paradise. You and your echo chamber can pat each other on the back all day long. Mmm, pretty little pink backrubs... That sounds hot.

YouTube had thumbs down, and that worked pretty good - most stupid comments got thumbs downed quickly and nobody saw them.But YouTube has no interest in regulating comments, and every interest in "integrating" other Google products.If they cared about offensive comments, thumbs down would work (currently the thumbs down is there, but it does nothing).

pla:But hey, no worries Arianna. I don't participate in forums that censor posts, so no worries that I'll taint your pretty little pink feminist paradise. You and your echo chamber can pat each other on the back all day long. Mmm, pretty little pink backrubs... That sounds hot.

You're on Fark. You participate in a forum that censors posts. Don't believe it? Try posting some porn and see what happens.

TV's Vinnie:Greek: TV's Vinnie: dv-ous: TV's Vinnie: what_now: This is literally the equivalent of going to someone's house, making an ass out of yourself, and then complaining when they kick you out.

Assuming your house is made of glass and everyone can see inside. In which case, you have no right to whine that there are people out there who don't agree with you about everything.

That doesn't even begin to make any sense.

Yeah. Sorry. I was talking to the adults.

So, what you're saying is that privately owned sites should be forced to let anyone comment any way they want to on their forums? Here's how it works: If I operate a website that allows the public to comment, I get to decide if any given comment is acceptable or not. If you don't like it, you're free to go start your own site where you can say and do anything you want to. When you send a letter to the editor of a print newspaper, they decide whether it's worthy of printing. This is the online equivalent.

If the site is on the very public Internet, and they have a comment section, then people should be allowed to voice their opinions.

pla:Rather than resorting to outright censorship, I've often wondered why all sites don't just implement a simple moderation system like Slashdot's (I'd make it even simpler than that, actually - No "mod points" or any crap like that, just let everyone up or downvote whatever they want). Each user can independently choose the threshold of comments they want to view. That approach has another perk, in that if you only have five minutes to catch up on the news, you don't need to wade through 400 comments to find the good ones, you can set your threshold to "top 1%" or whatever the site wants to call it, and see just the gems. And if you have four hours to kill on an airport layover, hey, time to read at -1.

But hey, no worries Arianna. I don't participate in forums that censor posts, so no worries that I'll taint your pretty little pink feminist paradise. You and your echo chamber can pat each other on the back all day long. Mmm, pretty little pink backrubs... That sounds hot.

you end up with the issues DIGG had, with whatever far-right group could funnel the most to the site could control the stories hitting the fount page

If a site is going to moderated, it's important that it have some degree of neutrality. I once had to quit a "sailing cruising" forum of all things because the moderators went through and deleted exactly half of a polite debate. Apparently one moderator was horribly offended that some sailboat cruisers believed in personal responsibility and didn't want conflicting opinions polluting the forum. Weird.

miscreant:pla: But hey, no worries Arianna. I don't participate in forums that censor posts, so no worries that I'll taint your pretty little pink feminist paradise. You and your echo chamber can pat each other on the back all day long. Mmm, pretty little pink backrubs... That sounds hot.

You're on Fark. You participate in a forum that censors posts. Don't believe it? Try posting some porn and see what happens.

You don't even need that. Just call out a user who hasn't posted, or any of the other rules. Fark may be a free-for-all that encourages trolling for the ad revenue, but there are limits here too.

TV's Vinnie:foxyshadis: It's hilarious how many people don't realize how easy it is to link an IP address to a post once you commit a crime. Even without the courts, internet detectives have long been able to link handles to real identities with a little digging; anonymity is just a polite fiction when most people are unable to keep their real lives entirely offline.

So, why the need to shotgun-march us to subscribe to creepy sh*t sites like Facebook?

Wait, what? Creepy? You can sign up under any name and have as many logins as you want. It's only creepy if you associate an FB account with your real life.

They do it because they're inherently lazy and want the maximum return for minimum effort. FB APIs are simple and near-universal, and G+ and Twitter APIs cover most of the rest. (Disqus sucks, but same deal.) They're like 10 seconds to copy-and-paste in. Why wouldn't they want to do that instead of spending weeks creating their own login system?

OpenID was decent because it wasn't a central authority tracking you around the web, but the overwhelming juggernaut of FB and G+ all but killed it.

I think that we should be censoring FB rather than linking other accounts to it. I have never heard of a teen committing suicide over HuffPo comments. And while I agree with all of the people lining up to rip into me, no, a FB account isn't required as a teen, and yes parents should monitor it, but the reality is that for teens, social media is a major part if their day to day interaction, and can be abused quite horrifyingly by the little psychos.

foxyshadis:It's hilarious how many people don't realize how easy it is to link an IP address to a post once you commit a crime. Even without the courts, internet detectives have long been able to link handles to real identities with a little digging; anonymity is just a polite fiction when most people are unable to keep their real lives entirely offline.

There are many ways to obfuscate your IP from a website and not something that needs to be done in order to be offensive, unless you are leaning towards the opinion that text, which does not incite violence, can constitute a crime?

This article was already submitted here ~week ago, but wasn't listed. It goes to the Slashdot summary, and not directly to the actual cuz I liked the take on it.

Not to get into the transference of blame that we slide into with dismissing personal responsibility of our snowflakes, it does make a fair point about how we(or our parents)have created this world where we want to be around our friends(not that any of you people are)but our parents ended our roaming days of flitting from here to there in the world and locked us up in our own homes for fear of the unknown.

The interesting thing that relates back to the current article here is that we have created this world that we now inhabit at the keyboard cuz our parents were afraid of the world and the non-existent dangers that were present. Now we are sanitizing this world as well by locking ourselves up in our own homes computers even more as we didn't learn the lessons on how to deal with the neighborhood jerks and the crazies on the street corner or down by the liquor store, quickiemart, bar, park, etc.

InterruptingQuirk:foxyshadis: It's hilarious how many people don't realize how easy it is to link an IP address to a post once you commit a crime. Even without the courts, internet detectives have long been able to link handles to real identities with a little digging; anonymity is just a polite fiction when most people are unable to keep their real lives entirely offline.

There are many ways to obfuscate your IP from a website and not something that needs to be done in order to be offensive, unless you are leaning towards the opinion that text, which does not incite violence, can constitute a crime?

That's why I said many people don't understand. They think a fake name is enough. Sure, 4channers behind 7 boxies aren't going to let themselves be found.

Do you think that libel and threats aren't a crime as long as they're only written down? Saying you're going to show up and kill someone isn't "inciting" violence, but it is a death threat and a crime, even if it's by a ridiculous preteen ITG. The same anonymity that protects us also means that we can't know for sure if a threat is genuine or not.

roc6783 : no, a FB account isn't required as a teen, and yes parents should monitor it, but the reality is that for teens, social media is a major part if their day to day interaction

Not going to rip into you, but I have to disagree on one point. Yes, virtually every teen has a FB page. But believe it or not, they actually "get" the privacy implications in a way their middle-aged mothers don't.

We hear about nonstop teen stupidity on Facebook largely because the media knows it can use that to market to the "adults with disposable income that consider today's youth a bunch of weak morons" demographic.

Most of the real stupidity going on on the likes of Facebook comes from its single largest user base - Soccer moms. Not teens.

Wikipedia is great -- it's the only place where the truth of a statement is determined by how much free time you have to dick around on the internet. Just as the victors have always written the history books, now the unemployed write the encyclopedia articles.

InterruptingQuirk:This article was already submitted here ~week ago, but wasn't listed. It goes to the Slashdot summary, and not directly to the actual cuz I liked the take on it.

Not to get into the transference of blame that we slide into with dismissing personal responsibility of our snowflakes, it does make a fair point about how we(or our parents)have created this world where we want to be around our friends(not that any of you people are)but our parents ended our roaming days of flitting from here to there in the world and locked us up in our own homes for fear of the unknown.

The interesting thing that relates back to the current article here is that we have created this world that we now inhabit at the keyboard cuz our parents were afraid of the world and the non-existent dangers that were present. Now we are sanitizing this world as well by locking ourselves up in our own homes computers even more as we didn't learn the lessons on how to deal with the neighborhood jerks and the crazies on the street corner or down by the liquor store, quickiemart, bar, park, etc.

TV's Vinnie:I don't mind comments being moderated within reason, but I really don't like the idea of being forced to subscribe to Facebook and Google Plus just to make a comment. I have never had a use for either service and when you hear stories about Facebook's horrid security flaws and employers demanding Facebook passwords form applicants, it's downright creepy.

HP is notorious for deliberately trying to shape discussions by only allowing comments that agree with HP. No surprise that they would go this route and now demand subscriptions to Facebook.

Sir, I can't believe I am agreeing with you on something, but I am wholeheartedly with you on this. I'll never have a facebook or similar type of account, and now even the local newspaper forces you to use a facebook ID in order to make a comment. Ridiculous. All you will have commenting now are the chatty social types.

foxyshadis:InterruptingQuirk: foxyshadis: It's hilarious how many people don't realize how easy it is to link an IP address to a post once you commit a crime. Even without the courts, internet detectives have long been able to link handles to real identities with a little digging; anonymity is just a polite fiction when most people are unable to keep their real lives entirely offline.

There are many ways to obfuscate your IP from a website and not something that needs to be done in order to be offensive, unless you are leaning towards the opinion that text, which does not incite violence, can constitute a crime?

That's why I said many people don't understand. They think a fake name is enough. Sure, 4channers behind 7 boxies aren't going to let themselves be found.

Do you think that libel and threats aren't a crime as long as they're only written down? Saying you're going to show up and kill someone isn't "inciting" violence, but it is a death threat and a crime, even if it's by a ridiculous preteen ITG. The same anonymity that protects us also means that we can't know for sure if a threat is genuine or not.

Ok, I acknowledge the modifier you made in re: "many", so please acknowledge the modifier I used re: "which does not incite violence". OK? OK.

chitownmike:InterruptingQuirk: This article was already submitted here ~week ago, but wasn't listed. It goes to the Slashdot summary, and not directly to the actual cuz I liked the take on it.

Not to get into the transference of blame that we slide into with dismissing personal responsibility of our snowflakes, it does make a fair point about how we(or our parents)have created this world where we want to be around our friends(not that any of you people are)but our parents ended our roaming days of flitting from here to there in the world and locked us up in our own homes for fear of the unknown.

The interesting thing that relates back to the current article here is that we have created this world that we now inhabit at the keyboard cuz our parents were afraid of the world and the non-existent dangers that were present. Now we are sanitizing this world as well by locking ourselves up in our own homes computers even more as we didn't learn the lessons on how to deal with the neighborhood jerks and the crazies on the street corner or down by the liquor store, quickiemart, bar, park, etc.

We will not become stronger/wiser this way.

You had a farked up childhood and your parents suck

Actually I had a great childhood and roamed the world over with my parent's blessing to do so. I however was present at the forefront of this trend and saw it developing into what it is today. I live in a very diverse neighborhood with many tax brackets in the $0-80,000/yr range and so see many children playing in the streets, but mostly from parents who don't care, for whatever reason. My four kids, oldest being 6, are not quite ready to be set free upon their own recognizance, I hope that the wife and I can be sufficiently comforted that we have done all we could and let them go off and play.

Greek:TV's Vinnie: dv-ous: TV's Vinnie: what_now: This is literally the equivalent of going to someone's house, making an ass out of yourself, and then complaining when they kick you out.

Assuming your house is made of glass and everyone can see inside. In which case, you have no right to whine that there are people out there who don't agree with you about everything.

That doesn't even begin to make any sense.

Yeah. Sorry. I was talking to the adults.

So, what you're saying is that privately owned sites should be forced to let anyone comment any way they want to on their forums? Here's how it works: If I operate a website that allows the public to comment, I get to decide if any given comment is acceptable or not. If you don't like it, you're free to go start your own site where you can say and do anything you want to. When you send a letter to the editor of a print newspaper, they decide whether it's worthy of printing. This is the online equivalent.

I think TV's Vinnie is doing an excellent job of demonstrating why you might want to censor online comments, so bravo, really.

ciberido:Greek: TV's Vinnie: dv-ous: TV's Vinnie: what_now: This is literally the equivalent of going to someone's house, making an ass out of yourself, and then complaining when they kick you out.

Assuming your house is made of glass and everyone can see inside. In which case, you have no right to whine that there are people out there who don't agree with you about everything.

That doesn't even begin to make any sense.

Yeah. Sorry. I was talking to the adults.

So, what you're saying is that privately owned sites should be forced to let anyone comment any way they want to on their forums? Here's how it works: If I operate a website that allows the public to comment, I get to decide if any given comment is acceptable or not. If you don't like it, you're free to go start your own site where you can say and do anything you want to. When you send a letter to the editor of a print newspaper, they decide whether it's worthy of printing. This is the online equivalent.

I think TV's Vinnie is doing an excellent job of demonstrating why you might want to censor online comments, so bravo, really.

And how so? Is it right to not allow all comments? Death threats are illegal and are actually a criminal offense, but to not want to be forced to subscribe to the Facebook Collective is wrong?

Mehh, HuffPo has been censoring comments for as long as I can remember. I have at least one account that was blocked some time ago, and I never did find out why. I'm usually very careful with my comments, but I must have pissed off some liberal moderator somewhere. Who knows, no big loss....

I doubt this will change much. How hard is it to make a new throw away email, attach it to a throw away FaceBook account and make a throw away HuffPo account?